Slater and Gordon Lawyers are one of the largest Personal Injury Law Firms in the UK. Our Solicitors deal with every type of personal injury claim from car accidents to Asbestos compensation claims.
Read more.

Our team is independently recognised as the UK's leading employment team. Our standing is confirmed by our solo top-tier ranking achieved in the professional directories, and the awards we have won for our employment services.
Read more.

Slater and Gordon Lawyers is home to the largest group of family Lawyers in the country with offices across England & Wales. Contact us to give advice on your issue along with information on flexible pricing and fixed fee services.
Read more.

Legal Industry News

Plan to end Bible oaths rejected

A plan to end the practice of witnesses swearing on a bible before they give their testimony has been rejected.

The Magistrates' Association, which represents three-quarters of the 23,000 magistrates across England and Wales, discussed whether or not to ban the practice because of the decreasing number of people identifying with religion, according to the BBC.

Currently, a witness has to swear on their holy book of choice, unless they are atheist, in which case they have to pledge the "solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm" to tell the truth.

Supporters of the motion argued that holy books are no longer the moral totem they once were and people are finding it increasingly easy to lie under oath because of this.

But opponents of the plan, which were said to include church leaders, believe it strengthens a witness' credibility in the eyes of the court.

Bristol magistrate Ian Abrahams, who was behind the motion debated by the Magistrates' Association at a summit, said people are no more likely to tell the truth under oath and a greater sense of the seriousness of perverting the course of justice should be imbued via an alternative oath.

Mr Abrahams' alternative pledge, which garnered some support among the Magistrates' Association, would have read: "I understand that if I fail to [tell the truth], I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison."

However, a Nick Freeman, a lawyer who voted against Mr Abrahams, said: "Evidence must be strengthened if people swear on religious texts. The way you stamp out lying under oath is to punish people who do so, not to get rid of the religious oath.

"By changing it you are depriving people with a religious faith of the chance to reinforce their evidence by swearing on their religious text."

Any changes voted on would likely have needed parliamentary approval before being implemented, but this will now not be needed.